14:58:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag-act
14:58:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-wcag-act-irc
14:58:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:58:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be
14:58:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Accessibility Conformance Testing Teleconference
14:58:23 <trackbot> Date: 15 February 2017
14:58:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
14:58:40 <Wilco> agenda+ Previous week's survey results (from Feb. 8) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF8Feb2017/results
15:00:39 <Wilco> zakim, clear agenda
15:00:39 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:02:14 <maryjom> maryjom has joined #wcag-act
15:03:40 <Wilco> agneda+ Previous week's survey results (from Feb. 8) https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF8Feb2017/results
15:03:48 <Wilco> agneda+ Draft section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split
15:03:49 <MoeKraft> MoeKraft has joined #wcag-act
15:03:57 <Wilco> agneda+ Draft section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split
15:04:01 <Wilco> agneda+ Draft section 6.2 Rule Aggregation https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/46/files?diff=split
15:04:05 <Wilco> agneda+ Current week's survey results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF15Feb2017/results
15:04:07 <Wilco> agneda+ Resolutions of 9 Feb. 2017 meeting https://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-wcag-act-minutes.html
15:04:10 <Wilco> agneda+ Draft Section 7.1 Managing Exceptions https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/51/files?diff=split
15:04:14 <Wilco> agneda+ Extra meetings to get spec ready for FPWD by CSUN
15:04:16 <Wilco> agneda+ Progress on issues assigned last week - ready to survey?
15:04:20 <Wilco> agneda+ Open Issues in Github https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
15:07:08 <Wilco> agenda?
15:07:44 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split
15:07:47 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split
15:07:50 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft section 6.2 Rule Aggregation https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/46/files?diff=split
15:07:52 <Wilco> agenda+ Current week's survey results https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF15Feb2017/results
15:07:55 <Wilco> agenda+ Resolutions of 9 Feb. 2017 meeting https://www.w3.org/2017/02/08-wcag-act-minutes.html
15:07:57 <Wilco> agenda+ Draft Section 7.1 Managing Exceptions https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/51/files?diff=split
15:08:00 <Wilco> agenda+ Extra meetings to get spec ready for FPWD by CSUN
15:08:02 <Wilco> agenda+ Progress on issues assigned last week - ready to survey?
15:08:05 <Wilco> agenda+ Open Issues in Github https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues
15:08:11 <Wilco> agenda?
15:08:34 <Kathy> Kathy has joined #wcag-act
15:11:23 <Kathy> present+ Kathy
15:11:36 <maryjom> present+MaryJoMueller
15:11:45 <shadi> present+
15:11:57 <Wilco> present+
15:12:04 <Kathy> scribe Kathy
15:12:26 <shadi> scribe: Kathy
15:12:36 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:12:36 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Kathy
15:12:43 <Kathy> q?
15:12:45 <Wilco> q?
15:12:49 <Wilco> ack m
15:12:51 <Kathy> q- moekraft
15:12:55 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:12:55 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Draft section 6.1 Output Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/41/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco]
15:13:40 <agarrison> agarrison has joined #wcag-act
15:13:51 <Kathy> Wilco - question from Roman on labeling for input data and whether or not it needs to be there
15:14:06 <Kathy> Wilco - how strictly do we want to stick with Earl
15:14:38 <Kathy> Wilco - if we are then we should base everything on Earl
15:15:53 <Kathy> Shadi - Earl is incomplete, we did not have enough implementations.  There is no requirement to do this.  Suggestion is to stick with Earl unless there is a reason to deviate
15:16:28 <Kathy> Wilco - one of the reasons could be that we need different terminology
15:17:06 <Kathy> Shadi - web content and test subjects are terms are in Earl
15:17:36 <Kathy> Shadi - what do you mean by web content
15:18:09 <Kathy> Wilco - really about what is the thing that we are testing and what name we give to that
15:18:31 <Kathy> Shadi - Earl is like object oriented programming
15:19:34 <Kathy> Wilco - question for Allistair is that web content clear enough term
15:19:56 <Kathy> Alistair - usually say something under test
15:20:22 <Kathy> Wilco - go with test subjects as a term
15:20:44 <Kathy> Wilco - no objections so will make the change
15:21:10 <Kathy> Wilco - second comment from Mary Jo - use the term in Earl
15:21:37 <Kathy> Wilco - any other comments?
15:21:48 <Kathy> Wilco - no, so we will merge this in
15:22:03 <Kathy> Zakim, take up next
15:22:03 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Draft section 4.2 Accessibility Support Data https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/32/files?diff=split" taken up [from Wilco]
15:22:08 <Kathy> zakim, take up next
15:22:08 <Zakim> agendum 2 was just opened, Kathy
15:22:35 <Kathy> Wilco - no comments on this
15:24:52 <Kathy> Moe - there were 6 responses in the survey
15:25:33 <MoeKraft> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/93339/ACTTF8Feb2017/results#xQ5
15:27:25 <MoeKraft> Accessibility experts often disagree on how accessibility requirements should be tested. These disagreements on how a requirement should be tested, lead to conflicting results of accessibility tests. This is true for both manual accessibility tests as well as for accessibility testing done through automated test tools (ATTs).
15:27:30 <shadi> scribe: shadi
15:30:48 <shadi> AG: by reference alone, test includes everything you are testing for
15:30:59 <shadi> ...no need to repeat in the supported bit
15:31:23 <shadi> ...seems repetitive
15:32:40 <shadi> WF: optional?
15:32:44 <shadi> AG: useless
15:32:58 <shadi> WF: suggest to keep for now until we figure out accessibility support
15:33:14 <shadi> ...if it turns out repetitive, then we can keep it
15:33:29 <shadi> AG: accessibility support woven in could be useful
15:33:49 <shadi> ...worried about maintance of accessibility support
15:34:01 <shadi> WF: idea is that rules won't have to change
15:34:17 <shadi> ...but tools may change which rules are running
15:34:28 <shadi> ...depending on environment of the testing
15:36:58 <shadi> SAZ: doesn't evaluator need to know what is accessibility supported or not?
15:37:12 <shadi> AG: best is owner to define that
15:41:02 <shadi> SAZ: WCAG recognizes accessibility support
15:42:33 <shadi> WF: need to move on
15:43:38 <shadi> KW: compatibility testing as black-box testing
15:43:49 <shadi> ...testing for requirements is more white-box
15:43:58 <shadi> ...really two different ways of testing
15:44:24 <shadi> ...WCAG 2 requirements are testable
15:44:34 <shadi> ...but support changes in ATs and browsers
15:45:23 <shadi> WF: agree that accessibility support may not apply to majority of tests
15:45:24 <MoeKraft> I have to drop. Have a good week.
15:45:35 <shadi> ...and the approach suggested by AG makes sense to some extent
15:45:50 <shadi> ...but also other approaches being used
15:46:01 <shadi> ...where people look at what is supported or not
15:46:16 <shadi> ...want to find a way to support the second, if possible
15:46:31 <shadi> KW: maintaining that is very difficult
15:46:36 <shadi> q+
15:46:49 <shadi> ...changes very frequently
15:46:56 <shadi> q-
15:47:05 <shadi> WF: we don't have to maintain anything
15:47:22 <shadi> ...just making the accessibility support assumptions explicit
15:47:33 <shadi> ...then evaluators can select matching rules
15:52:20 <shadi> SAZ: do we have an auto-wcag rule as an example?
15:52:57 <shadi> KW: not against this idea but concern is that how the code fits in the entire page can also be an issue
15:53:24 <shadi> ...cannot always be definitive
15:54:07 <shadi> MJM: in some languages AT implementations are far behind
15:54:22 <shadi> WF: but that is exactly the reason for this approach
15:54:37 <shadi> MJM: how can evaluators keep up with all this?
15:54:48 <shadi> WF: they don't have to
15:54:57 <shadi> ...just making "relied upon" more explicit
15:55:21 <shadi> ...if AT does not support this feature, then they know they can exclude the rule
15:56:39 <shadi> KW: add editor note to explain concerns and considerations?
15:56:51 <shadi> WF: absolutely, good idea
15:58:28 <Kathy> +1
15:58:32 <shadi> +1
15:58:39 <maryjom> +1
15:58:39 <agarrison> +1 for editors note
15:58:45 <shadi> Alan: +1
15:59:32 <shadi> zakim, take up agendum 7
15:59:32 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Extra meetings to get spec ready for FPWD by CSUN" taken up [from Wilco]
15:59:51 <shadi> WF: need additional meetings to catch up on schedule
16:00:19 <shadi> ...meeting *in addition* on Thursday 16 and Thursday 23
16:00:32 <shadi> ...keeping Wednesday 22 as well
16:00:37 <shadi> ...all same time
16:03:24 <shadi> trackbot, end meeting
16:03:24 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Wilco, Charu, Moe, MaryJo, Shadi, maryjom, Kathy, MoeKraft, Alistair, MaryJoMueller
16:03:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/15-wcag-act-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:33 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:33 <RRSAgent> I see no action items